Responding to a Protestant Claim about the Eucharist

[Gabriel_of_12]

susanlo;14524907]These quotes from Ignatius do not show a conversion of the elements

.

Hi, susanlo;
The reason Ignatius is not writing or teaching about the conversion of the elements. Is due to the fact that Ignatius writes under the pretense that the conversion of the elements has already taken place in the Eucharist. Ignatius is not writing to unbelievers but to believers in the Church, who already possess the faith of a Change that takes place during the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

St. Ignatius is prescribing to their common faith in the Eucharist, as it applies to unity in Christ, and to his personal Martyrdom, as a sacrifice pleasing and acceptable to God. Most biblical/historian scholars who comment on his Martyrdom letter, reflect the underlined below as Eucharistic Characteristics.

He describes his martyrdom: "I beseech of you not to show an unseasonable good-will towards me. Allow me to become food for the wild beasts, through whose instrumentality it will be granted me to attain to God. I am the wheat of God, and let me be ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of Christ. Rather entice the wild beasts, that they may become my tomb, and may leave nothing of my body; so that when I have fallen asleep [in death], I may be no trouble to any one. Then shall I truly be a disciple of Christ, when the world shall not see so much as my body. Entreat Christ for me, that by these instruments I may be found a sacrifice [to God]…

The first quote from the Letter to the Romans is not about the Eucharist at all. It is about his desire for the church in Rome to not intervene to prevent his martyrdom in Rome. He wants to die and be present with Jesus, not have the Eucharist

.

That is because, when Ignatius goes to his certain martyrdom, as Christ is in him. Ignatius becomes Eucharist = A Sacrificial thanksgiving, that prays to be acceptable unto God. Remember, Ignatius is writing to fellow believers who understand his Eucharistic terminology, that references the True and divine acceptable sacrifice pleasing to God.

Ignatius letters possess Eucharistic tones, because Ignatius reveals the Eucharist is the summit and pinnacle of the Catholic faith for all believers. He prays from his letters with Eucharistic tones to inspire the faithful to reflect upon the sincerity of his various letter topics, proves how important faith in the Eucharist is universal and practiced in daily life.

I think the part of the confusion is the way JND Kelly uses the term realism. He doesn’t mean an actual conversion and considers a symbolic understanding to fit under the term ‘realism’ as well. I also think the term Real Presence is troublesome because people seem to use it to mean very different things

.

There is no confusion on the ECF’s part, when it comes to their faith in the Eucharist, and there is no problem in the real presence on the part of the Ignatius. Before Ignatius and since Ignatius, the real presence has not changed the apostolic faith in the Eucharistic real presence.

Ignatius roundly **declares **[Smyrn 6,2] that 'the eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which the Father in His goodness raised’. **The bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup His blood **[Rom 7,3].

This is JND Kelly’s opinion;
CLEARLY he intends this realism to be taken STRICTLY, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists’ DENIAL of the REALITY of Christ’s body…**The eucharist **was also, of course, **the great act of worship of Christians, their SACRIFICE. The writers and liturgies of the period are UNANIMOUS in recognizing it as such." **(Early Christian Doctrines, page 196-198, 214 emphasis added)

I find JND’s opinion on “realism” is “to be taken STRICTLY” by Ignatius standards on the
Eucharist. I don’t disagree with your opinion for JND’s opinion of realism.

I would stand firm on Ignatius declaration, who declares using the same Word Jesus used, without confusion of any kind when he states; “the Eucharist IS the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ…The breed IS the flesh of Jesus, the cup His blood”

Peace be with you

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Hi la,

It can be invalid in the spiritual heart. Isn’t this the most important, rather than technicalities in exterior…like the Pharisees and “how many times did you wash the cup?”

Paul addresses "improper “eucharisting”, that deals nothing with who administers, and the only invalidating is the attitude and action of the receiver.

Go burn a US flag while tailgating, and then see if it does not “invalidate” your “pledge of Allegiance” or singing of the national anthem just before kickoff (or the dropping of the puck).

Blessings

Hi ben.

I do understand what you are saying and in todays fragmented, reformed churches that lack hierarchy and doctrinal unity i would take that angle as well as a protestant. But we are talking about a actual physical item being invalidated unless a Bishop or his entrusted is there. Not a concept or a pledge, something tangible. And it doesnt stress belief or lackthereof of the communicate. What’s being stressed is the faculties of the episcopate and his ability to delegate to certain individuals so the sacraments may be proper and valid.

Ignatius comments do not seem to mesh with reformed idea that any believer can confect the Eucharist. Had it been so, i cant imagine him taking the time to write these sort of details stating the contrary. He was under heavy persecution with a ticking clock towards martyrdom.

Susan rightfully points out that anyone can baptize so long as certain conditions are met. But that’s always been the exception not the norm.

All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. But wait Jesus didnt sin, neither do babies or the mentally impaired. So people can make statements generally speaking, and that’s the case here. Baptism/ repentance saves so use common sense and have laity perform this ritual in emergency situations. Ignatius would agree, even though it isnt stated in his work.

Pax

 

[benhur]

From the institution of the priesthood from Christ at the Last Supper, the bishops (and priests which are ordained by bishops) receive the mission and faculty that is the sacred power, to act in persona Christi Capitis. The ordination is from “Do this in memory of me” and the Apostles are the bishops.

Hi Vico,

I kindly disagree that all Christians in effect , can not be a in persona Christi Capitis. I mean when we do corporal works , who is it that works, or heals or teaches ? I mean to be Christ like is doing what Christ would do , "in person’, and by His Spirit.

What you are saying is that some "parts’’ are more Christian , or in persona Christi more than others. Is that like the mouth saying I am more part of the body than say the elbow ?

This division is very Old Testament.

That we have divisions of labor, even leadership and giftings, does not necessarily make one Christian more in persona Christi than another. . Yet you would hope those in leadership would be that , as in more mature in Christ, but maturity is a gifting and a challenge for all Christians, no matter what part of the body they function in. And Christian maturity is just that, the degree that indeed we act in persona Christi Capitis,
Blessings, avoiding any tautology that can be the "priesthood’.

 

[benhur]

Ignatius comments do not seem to mesh with reformed idea that any believer can confect the Eucharist.

Hi La,

Correct, but nor would it mesh that only a priesthood could preside a communion.

What seems to be absolutely clear is that the bishop can appoint, not ordain, appoint anyone whom he chooses.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Take for example St. Ambrose who writes; “Now we, as often as we receive the Sacramental Elements, which by the mysterious efficacy of holy prayer are TRANSFORMED into the flesh and the blood”…
Perhaps you will say, "I see something else, How is it that you assert that i receive the Body of Christ? “Let us prove that this is not what nature made, but what the blessing consecrated, and the power of blessing is greater than that of nature, because by blessing nature itself is changed”.

Hi G,

Yes he certainly seems to espouse a change. Is it true that he also espouse a continual sacrifice, not a representing, but continual shedding for a continual sin remission ?

“If, as often as the blood is shed, it is shed for the remission of sins, I ought always to receive it, that my sins may be always forgiven. I who always sin, ought always to have the medicine” (Lib. iv., cap. 7, p. 372)”

Is that a misrepresentation of His theology ?

Here is the unchanged faith by St. Augustine who was personally baptized by St. Ambrose. St. Augustine a student of St. Ambrose writes his unchanged apostolic faith in the real presence, "St. Augustine; "That bread which you see on the altar, consecrated by the Word of God, is the body of Christ…"

Yes but how is it His body ? By miraculous change to be really His body, or a spiritual/symbolic presence ???

He also says , "to take the signs for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage "( On Christians Doctrine 3:9)

How does that fit in ?

Let us be clear here benhur; The ECF’s used words to describe a Change in the bread and wine, such as; Transmutation, Sacramental Elements, Transformation, Trans-Elements, Change, Not as common bread, nor common wine to we receive these,

I do not consider the grape juice/wine or unleavened bread as “common” either…It has been transformed spiritually to symbolically represent the reality of Christ.

Although the ECF’s descriptive “Change” in the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christ, never reaches the status of doctrine that defeats all heresies and heretics.

And did the church not grow in leaps and bounds, in unity, with out the doctrine of transubstantiation that came later, without specifying what change is meant, without distinction between even spiritual/symbolic presence and literal physical/symbolic presence ?

Yes, by Justin Martyr reflecting on the Eucharist as a “Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving” only confirms his faith in the real presence. “For not as common bread and common wine do we receive these, which is blessed by the prayer of His Word…”

Again,what kind of real presence ? But yes, many P’s are divided , some saying he is specific about literal body presence , others no.

The Passover had lots of food elements each being a symbol for a spiritual reality. A physical change was not needed to call them sanctified , and not common anymore.

benhur, common bread and common wine which only symbolizes a past event will not suffice a “sacrifice” pleasing unto God.

The blessed in like manner symbols/elements of bread and wine suffice to “remember” the sacrifice that is pleasing to God (Calvary), as commanded, and therefore is pleasing to God. In fact He inhabits the praise, even thanksgiving, of His people, the “new” sacrifice, for all others have ceased.

Blessings

 

[Cathoholic]

benhur. You said:

but that indeed much of the priestly functions cease, with Calvary.

OK.

But WHY do you think ANY priestly functions remain in the New Covenant?

WHICH “priestly function” still remains after Christ’s work? (You said “much of” these functions cease and not “all”).

WHY would these priestly functions still be included in your thinking here?

And are these priestly functions “necessary” or are they “optional”?

If you think they are optional WHY have them at all?

 

[Cathoholic]

Benhur. You said:

Further we are all now heirus priests according to Peter

No. That’s not exactly what St. Peter said. He said we have a priesthood IN Christ (“through Jesus Christ”).

There is ONLY ONE Priest benhur. Jesus Christ.

(Catholics affirm we have a SHARE in that ONE Priesthood of Christ’s. A SHARE to differing degrees . . . the priesthood of all believers, Presbyters, and Episcopoi or Bishops).

WHY do you think this priesthood of all the Baptized faithful exists benhur?

Hopefully it is to offer “spiritual sacrifices to God through Jesus Christ”.

1st PETER 2:4-5, 7b-9 4 Come to him, to that living stone, rejected by men but in God’s sight chosen and precious; 5 and like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. . . . . 7b “The very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner,” 8 and “A stone that will make men stumble, a rock that will make them fall”; for they stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do. 9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.

Is this “priesthood” of all believers an option?
Or is it necessary for those who can exercise it?

If it’s “optional” why have it at all?
If it’s necessary WHY would THAT be considering Christ’s infinite work on Calvary? WHY do we need to offer ANY “Sacrifice” to God?

 

[Vico]

Hi Vico,

I kindly disagree that all Christians in effect , can not be a in persona Christi Capitis. I mean when we do corporal works , who is it that works, or heals or teaches ? I mean to be Christ like is doing what Christ would do , "in person’, and by His Spirit.

What you are saying is that some "parts’’ are more Christian , or in persona Christi more than others. Is that like the mouth saying I am more part of the body than say the elbow ?

This division is very Old Testament.

That we have divisions of labor, even leadership and giftings, does not necessarily make one Christian more in persona Christi than another. . Yet you would hope those in leadership would be that , as in more mature in Christ, but maturity is a gifting and a challenge for all Christians, no matter what part of the body they function in. And Christian maturity is just that, the degree that indeed we act in persona Christi Capitis,
Blessings, avoiding any tautology that can be the "priesthood’.

It is one thing to be “In the Person of Christ, the Head,” and another to be an image of Christ. For example, a Catholic deacon is clergy, but does not act in the person of Christ as a priest does. For that reason the deacon cannot confect the Eucharist nor administer all sacraments. Since ecumenical communities that separated from the Catholic Church do not administer seven sacraments they do not have the same functions in their clergy.

 

[Cathoholic]

P’s only mention heirus priests because of what CC does to the mass as a sacrificial offering , ala OT, though in an unbloody manner and a representing. He is a “go between” the people and God.

If you mean Catholics think of themselves as a “go between” in the sense of Priests on their own, you are wrong about what we teach.

If you mean Catholics think of themselves as a “go between” in the sense of Priests having a PARTICIPATION in the ONE Priesthood of Christ, you are right about what we teach.

Which type of “priesthood” do you think we as Catholics are alluding to? (Before you answer that, remember, Protestants affirm the Priesthood of all believers too.)

WHY do Protestants have a “go between” the people and God?

---

CCC 1547a The ministerial or hierarchical priesthood of bishops and priests, and the common priesthood of all the faithful participate, “each in its own proper way, in the one priesthood of Christ.” . . .

CCC 1141a The celebrating assembly is the community of the baptized who, "by regeneration and the anointing of the Holy Spirit, are consecrated to be a spiritual house and a holy priesthood, that through all the works of Christian men they may offer spiritual sacrifices."9 **This “common priesthood” **is that of Christ the sole priest, in which all his members participate:10 . . . . .

CCC 1545 The redemptive sacrifice of Christ is unique, accomplished once for all; yet it is made present in the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Church. The same is true of the one priesthood of Christ; it is made present through the ministerial priesthood without diminishing the uniqueness of Christ’s priesthood: "Only Christ is the true priest, the others being only his ministers."19

 

[Cathoholic]

benhur. You mentioned . . . . .

but for us (Protestants) not using the biblical "presbyter’’ and the function of CC priest, which appears very Jewish, is what draws discussion.

The functions of the presbyters IS very Jewish. It’s very Jewish because the fullness of Christianity, Catholicism, is fulfilled Judaism.

The function concerning ministerial Priests is (but not limited to) to give service in corporate worship including preaching the Gospel, offering sacrifice, especially the re-presentation of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, forgive sins in the person of Christ sometimes with and/or including anointing the sick, and carry out Parish governance (teach, govern, and sanctify). Sometimes they act as an extraordinary minister of Confirmation.

In the case of Bishops (who are also Ministerial Priests but have a GREATER share in Christ’s Priesthood than men who are only Ministerial Priests) they have the same functions PLUS they are the ordinary ministers of confirmation, hand down succession and authority by the laying on of hands, and govern on a Church or diocesan level.

Both Presbyters and Bishops Baptize (although others CAN do that) and also officiate marriages.

What are YOUR issues with these functions?

 

[Cathoholic]

benhur (with emphasis mine):

Indeed NT presbyter is appropo, but not because of Jewish sensitivities, but that indeed much of the priestly functions cease . . .

Certainly you will admit that a first century Jew who hears the word hiereus, will think Levitical Priest right?

(If our Jewish friends and family have this mindset TODAY, how much MORE in the Apostolic age when the Temple was still standing for much of it?)

You CAN clarify like St. Luke does in Acts 14:13 (“The priest of Zeus”), but if you don’t clarify WHAT do you think a first century Jew is going to think when hearing the word hiereus?

They are going to think of the Temple and the Levite Priests.

Don’t you admit that Jewish sensibilities at least have a role here? Especially when I already discussed Fr. Pacwa’s personal experience?

Should I go to Jewish people and tell them: “Well, benhur says the word hiereus won’t hearken you to the Levitical Priesthood and the Temple?”

Or are you thinking of something else here that I am not seeing? Please clarify.

---

Calling priests “hiereuses” or “Cohens” (Kohenim) is fine for an audience of hearers such as you or I, but in the New Testament (and early church) you needed to exercise caution with that term.

Otherwise you are forced to “clarify” every time you call priests an iereus.

Fr. Pacwa himself discusses this phenomenon and how he himself experienced this when he got rebuked by his Jewish Hebrew instructor. She asked the class to give a brief vignette about themselves. Fr. Pacwa identified himself and an iereus or Cohen. She immediately reprimanded him telling him he could NOT be an iereus unless he was of the Tribe of Levi. Since she would characterize Fr. Pacwa as a “Gentile”, she said he couldn’t POSSIBLY be an iereus.

He points out by using this term he immediately offended Jewish sensibilities and had to backtrack.

As Hebrews says, with a change in priesthood comes a change in law.

In the New Covenant, we have a change in BOTH priesthood and law.

 

[benhur]

benhur (with emphasis mine):

Certainly you will admit that a first century Jew who hears the word hiereus, will think Levitical Priest right?

(If our Jewish friends and family have this mindset TODAY, how much MORE in the Apostolic age when the Temple was still standing for much of it?)

You CAN clarify like St. Luke does in Acts 14:13 (“The priest of Zeus”), but if you don’t clarify WHAT do you think a first century Jew is going to think when hearing the word hiereus?

They are going to think of the Temple and the Levite Priests.

Don’t you admit that Jewish sensibilities at least have a role here? Especially when I already discussed Fr. Pacwa’s personal experience?

Should I go to Jewish people and tell them: “Well, benhur says the word hiereus won’t hearken you to the Levitical Priesthood and the Temple?”

Or are you thinking of something else here that I am not seeing? Please clarify.

---

Hi C,

Thank you for your response.

Are you inferring that the NT uses bishop/presbyter in place of heireus because of need to be distinct from OT and Judaism, when the early church was first a Jewish sect off branch ?

One of the main functions of the priest was that of offering sacrifices, bloody sacrifices for the people, daily. The temple was a very smelly and bloody place (well portions of it).
So absolutely the Greek word heireus (priest in English) has blood on its hands. But as we agree the NT minister, pastor, elder, is no longer heireus, but presbyter, even bishop. Some of these terms are also known to the Jews of that time. But the thrust is no longer of a bloody office or a “go between”. That is the other functions remain of teaching and pastoring, just no sacrifices, which in itself is monumentous change.

Ther term heireus is specifically absent from church offices. The only time it is mentioned is when all of us are considered "heireus, as a royal priesthood, even able to go into the holy of holies, boldly. We are the “go between” of God and the world, and we no longer need a go between ourselves, for we have Christ Jesus for that.

So the function of sacrifice and the function of a go between for sin,and because of sin, is no longer limited to the Levite class. That is not to say that we can not minister, even advocate before the Father, one for another, or a pastor for one of its sheep, but it is with the understanding that it is as one priest to another, one brother in Christ for another.

It is not a "Levite " class ministering to the other “eleven tribes”.

The Greek word heireus is translated “priest” in English I believe.

The question then really is why would a church drop the biblical term presbyter, and go to its offshoot “priest”, when indeed it arises sensitivities to the OT, and sacrifice, and “go between”, and Levitical priesthood. It is not just the Jew but the Gentile Christian that can see that.

Blessings

PS I believe it is only an English conundrum, though other languages may also stray from “presbyter”.

 

[benhur]

It is one thing to be “In the Person of Christ, the Head,” and another to be an image of Christ. For example, a Catholic deacon is clergy, but does not act in the person of Christ as a priest does. For that reason the deacon cannot confect the Eucharist nor administer all sacraments. Since ecumenical communities that separated from the Catholic Church do not administer seven sacraments they do not have the same functions in their clergy.

Hi V,

Understand. Not much of an image though if you can not act in His person. Like are we "shadows’’ and the priest is the real thing ?

But I understand , there are divisions of labor so to speak. Now it is just a question of what are those labors specifically (who says the deacon can not minister a sacrament,say a baptism. Yes of course the Church and Tradition, but is it apostolic, even according to the only determination from tradition and Writ ?)

I mean Christ not only acted as a leader as in the Person of the Father, a “direct agent”, or “in place of” but he also acted as an exact image and perfectly subservient to the Father, at the same time.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

benhur. You said:

OK.

But WHY do you think ANY priestly functions remain in the New Covenant?

WHICH “priestly function” still remains after Christ’s work? (You said “much of” these functions cease and not “all”).

WHY would these priestly functions still be included in your thinking here?

And are these priestly functions “necessary” or are they “optional”?

If you think they are optional WHY have them at all?

Hi C,

The functions of a "priest’’ that remain are more administrative (collection of tithes,"temple’’ maintenance), even shepherding and some teaching.

We have some of the “job description” in Writ for presbyter/bishop.

Writ is clear in other giftings offices such as prophecy, teaching, healing , and gift of helps etc…

Again, this is not straw man, of either/or. That is, because a heireus priest ceases, does not then also do away with presbytery roles etc… What is in Writ does not seem to be “optional”. That is also to say that an office can evolve (such as the understanding of the term Bishop), or that other administrative or ministerial models can appear. It is just a thing to discern and judge, for we can not then say it is from the beginning, or even apostolic. And we are not left orphans from which to discern these things thru the Spirit, both as individuals and corporately as a Body.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Benhur. You said:

No. That’s not exactly what St. Peter said. He said we have a priesthood IN Christ (“through Jesus Christ”).

There is ONLY ONE Priest benhur. Jesus Christ.

(Catholics affirm we have a SHARE in that ONE Priesthood of Christ’s. A SHARE to differing degrees . . . the priesthood of all believers, Presbyters, and Episcopoi or Bishops).

WHY do you think this priesthood of all the Baptized faithful exists benhur?

Hopefully it is to offer “spiritual sacrifices to God through Jesus Christ”.

Is this “priesthood” of all believers an option?
Or is it necessary for those who can exercise it?

If it’s “optional” why have it at all?
If it’s necessary WHY would THAT be considering Christ’s infinite work on Calvary? WHY do we need to offer ANY “Sacrifice” to God?

Hi C,

Well I think Peter does say we are priests. We are a royal priesthood. We minister to the world . We are the “go between” . As the Levites were to all the tribes of Israel, the Church is now to the world.

Yes Christ is our priest, even our High priest.

It is not a question of “optional” or “necessary”. Our spiritual sacrifices are those of thanksgiving and praise. Our priestly role is to the world, and to each other.

I disagree that there is a Levite “class” of priests in the church today, even in acknowledging we are all priests as the Church does. The OT model becomes new for those two reasons. It is a night and day difference.

Yet we are not far off, for there is a division of labor, a presbytery, giftings and offices.

Blessings

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hi G,
Yes he certainly seems to espouse a change. Is it true that he also espouse a continual sacrifice, not a representing, but continual shedding for a continual sin remission ?
“If, as often as the blood is shed, it is shed for the remission of sins, I ought always to receive it, that my sins may be always forgiven. I who always sin, ought always to have the medicine” (Lib. iv., cap. 7, p. 372)”
Is that a misrepresentation of His theology ?

Hello ben; The words do not misrepresent, when they are read and understood within the confines of the Apostolic Catholic faith. Reading such words without the Catholic faith possessing the words, a misunderstanding or misrepresentation can be evident.
Simply, the “continual sacrifice” in Eucharist is eternal = resurrected and made present always in the Church the body of Christ. The scriptures sums this subject up well, the sacrifice of Jesus Christ is “finished”, “Once and for ALL”. Therefore the presence of God is present to His Body the Church to forgive sin and His Eucharist body and blood is medicine for our souls. In particular the body, blood of Jesus Christ which is given, sacrificed and offered up for our sin, can never be represented or remade anew in any way, for this act of God is done “Once and for ALL”. Each Eucharist is never a new or different act of God, for the remission of sin. The Eucharist in every age since the last supper, is the One Eucharistic Presence of Jesus body and blood made present in time and space for the remission of sin.

Here is the unchanged faith by St. Augustine who was personally baptized by St. Ambrose. St. Augustine a student of St. Ambrose writes his unchanged apostolic faith in the real presence, "St. Augustine; “That bread which you see on the altar, consecrated by the Word of God, is the body of Christ…” Yes but how is it His body ? By miraculous change to be really His body, or a spiritual/symbolic presence ???

One can write a book on your question alone, and many believers in the real presence have. The short answer is “Faith”. Please be patient with me here;
A Transubstantiation that reflects a change of substance, that exist in bread and wine, that cannot be seen, is transubstantiated, by the Word of God (who is flesh), into the substance of the body and blood of the Lord Jesus, which cannot be quantified, thus faith is the invisible substance that uses the body and blood of our dear Lord Jesus Christ, as a bridge in order to enter the holy of holies of God’s presence, through Jesus substantial real presence in Eucharist, for “NO ONE goes to the Father except through Jesus”, real presence. Scripture follows here; Hebrews 11:1-6King James Version (KJV)
11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

To see Jesus Christ present in His Eucharist.True biblical Faith and full communion begins the path, to have the mind of Christ and to be One in Him, with Him and through Him in the Holy Spirit.By the Word of God, the substance of bread and wine cease to exist, but the accidents remain only to our senses (flesh), when the Lord can say; “the flesh availeth nothing”. The “substance” of bread and wine transubstantiated into the “substance”=whole person, body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, which cannot be measured or quantified is Spirit, as Jesus teaches, “It is the Spirit that give life”… the following scripture confirms this faith.
1Cor.2;10 this God has revealed to us through the Spirit.
For the Spirit scrutinizes everything, even the depths of God. 11Among human beings, who knows what pertains to a person except the spirit of the person that is within?
Similarly, no one knows what pertains to God except the Spirit of God.
12We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit that is from God, so that we may understand the things freely given us by God.
13And we speak about them not with words taught by human wisdom, but with words taught by the Spirit, describing spiritual realities in spiritual terms.
14Now the natural person does not accept what pertains to the Spirit of God, for to him it is foolishness, and he cannot understand it, because it is judged spiritually.**
15The spiritual person, however, can judge everything but is not subject to judgment* by anyone.
16For “who has known the mind of the Lord, so as to counsel him?” But we have the mind of Christ. .

He also says , "to take the signs for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage "( On Christians Doctrine 3:9)

How does that fit in ?

St. Augustine wrote many books on symbols and signs including numbers, You ask a difficult task here, my freind My short opinion is; My body is the mark which holds me bondage, when I take the signs of bread and wine (transubstantiated) into or signified as defined by Augustine to be real. The transubstantiated bread and wine remain bread and wine to my senses or flesh (body), this sign (bread and wine) is a mark of my weakness and holds me in bondage on this side of death, because my senses that have taken the signs of bread and wine when they (Transubstantiated) signify = the real presence of Jesus body and blood. Although my flesh consumes the body and blood of Jesus, the reality is, It is Jesus Himself who is Other = resurrected, uses His body and blood to become a bridge for my weakness and bondage, that makes me free, so that I may enter the holy of Holies in full communion with God’s presence. Amen

Thank you ben, for allowing me share my faith with you
Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

benhur;14532914]Hi G,

I do not consider the grape juice/wine or unleavened bread as “common” either…It has been transformed spiritually to symbolically represent the reality of Christ.

benhur, I thank you again for allowing me share my faith with you. I would ask in kind, to share your faith with me here, on how you believe the “grape juice”, cracker or “unleavened bread” has transformed spiritually to symbolically represent the reality of Christ.?

ben, those words you use symbolically, represent, transform are expressed from the ECF’s, but they do not interpret these words in way they are interpreted today. I am very curious to hear your expression of faith in a spiritual to symbolic representation of the reality of Christ.

Thank you
Gabe

 

[steve_b]

Paul isn’t instructing them about their understanding of the elements of the Eucharist. He is condemning them because at their Agape/Eucharist gatherings some people were feasting and getting drunk while others had very little. This “unworthy” behavior was causing a division among the “body” of believers at this church. Paul writes that they will be judged if they do not judge the body rightly (v. 29). Some versions use ‘discern’ instead of ‘judge’ in verse 29. “But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged” (v. 31). He instructs them that the solution to this “unworthy” behavior is to eat at home first so they will not be subject to judgment (v. 34). This ‘body’ in verse 29 is the body of believers, not the substance of the Eucharist.

I don’t think this passage shows a clear explanation of whether Paul taught transubstantiation, a spiritual presence or a symbolic Eucharist.

1 Corinthians 11:17-34 NASB
17 But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse. 18 For, in the first place, when you come together [p]as a church, I hear that [q]divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it. 19 For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become [r]evident among you. 20 Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper, 21 for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk.22 What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I will not praise you.

Paul has singled out those who are divided from those who aren’t divided. .They who are divided are irreverently celebrating the Eucharist.*

susan:

The Lord’s Supper
23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.

*When Jesus said “this is my body this is my blood” Jesus didn’t say this symbolized, He meant what He said, “this is my body This is my blood”

Many of Jesus own disciples left Him over this teaching. And Jesus was the one who instructed them face to face. His own disciples said to Jesus face, this is a hard saying who could even listen to it. AND THEY WALKED AWAY from Him never to return. *
*John 6:56-67

Protestants say the same thing. Just look at your argument.*

susan:

27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.

Do you understand what is just said there?There is no symbolizing here.
Guilty of the body: not discerning the body. This demonstrates the real presence of the body and blood of Christ,in the Eucharist even to those unworthy communicants here; who otherwise could not be guilty of the body and blood of Christ, or justly condemned for not discerning the Lord’s body, **if it was a symbol and NOT really **the true body and blood of Jesus present in the Eucharist.

susan:

28 But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly.

Not acknowledging what is really there, and acting irreverently towards the body and blood of Our Lord, is a sacrilege. And one can’t be judged and condemnedfor it if it is only a symbol and NOT really the true body and blood of Jesus

Paul is talking to the Church here. These are not a bunch of know nothing pagans even though they are acting like it. . They are in the only Church Jesus established .#34 , and Paul is lowering the boom on them for being so irreverent.

Maybe it says something, but Corinth is in ruins today.

 

[Cathoholic]

benhur. You said:

But the thrust is no longer of a bloody office . . .

The Sacrifice of the Mass is unbloody. It is an unbloody re-presentation of the one once for all Sacrifice.

You said (emphasis mine) . . . .

But the thrust is no longer of a bloody office or a “go between”. That is the other functions remain of teaching and pastoring, just no sacrifices, which in itself is monumentous change.

Yet there it is in Romans 12. Offering our bodies as a living sacrifice.

ROMANS 12:1 1 I appeal to you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.

This is a priestly function benhur.

Do you think it is “optional” or necessary?

WHY do you think you can be a “priest” in ANY sense benhur?

 

[Cathoholic]

benhur:

That is, because a heireus priest ceases, does not then also do away with presbytery roles etc…

But I never said a heireus priest “ceases”. (a heireus priest is FULFILLED)

I mentioned heireus priest terminology would be confusing in the early Church unless it was constantly clarified.

And it WOULD be.

The Old Covenant heireus priest is FULFILLED in Christ.

---

The issue then is . . . . Is Christ a Priest unto Himself ONLY?

OR

Does He ALLOW a SHARE in His Priestly ministry? How about in His SACRIFICIAL ministry?

If He allows this, WHY?

And if Christ allows a SHARE in His Priesthood, are there DIFFERING SHARES among some of the recipients?